A former Network Group Operations Manager of MTN Nigeria, Paul Odunewu, has asked the National Industrial Court (NIC) in Lagos to order the company to pay him $13.14 (N2.7 billion) being his entitlements, including share option.
He is also claiming N100 million as general damages for alleged wrongful termination of contract.
Joined as defendants in the suit are MTN Group, South Africa; MTN Nigeria, and MTN International, Mauritius.
Odunewu told Justice Oyejoju Oyewunmi that he was with MTN for over four years and was responsible for its outstanding achievements which continue to date.
He said he was accountable for the entire pre-paid and post-paid revenue, subscriptions, voucher management, and real-time charging.
“I built the engine of the defendant’s business in Nigeria, including people, process and technology and MTN made over N5.15trillion in revenue as at December 2013,” he claimed.
Odunewu, while responding under cross-examination by MTN’s counsel Ayo Obe, said he was a key employee and was promised long-term incentive.
Obe said: “I put it to you that you were not designated a key employee.” Odunewu replied: “That is not true.”
He averred that when MTN terminated his appointment, he was forced out of the premises, adding that his efforts to reach the management for compensation was unsuccessful.
“They did not respond to my letter until I engaged my counsel who had a meeting with them in July 2006.
“I wrote to them and made attempt to see the chief technical officer (CTO) but did not succeed. The threat to eject me was real until I engaged the services of a lawyer,” he alleged.
Odunewu said he was employed as an expatriate after MTN pleaded with him to return from the United Kingdom and help develop telecommunications in Nigeria, and in the process of negotiation was promised, among others, a share option, a long-term incentive scheme being developed by the company.
He claimed that when he got his letter of appointment and noticed that the share option was not contained in it, he complained but MTN persuaded him to accept the job as he would be entitled to the share after three years.
He averred that even before he instituted legal action, MTN had rebuffed his settlement moves. “The defendant was not interested in settlement.”
When Obe asked him to produce evidence of the share option incentive made to him, he said: “It was an inducement to attract me to come and work in Nigeria. My lord, before I joined MTN, the CTO informed me that I was entitled to the share options scheme. He fixed my salary which was half of what I earned in the UK.
“The CTO told me in an email that the long term incentive for Nigeria was still being developed and needed to be adapted to the local situation.
“We have served MTN notice to produce the electronic mail because all mails with staff are archived.”
Obe said: “I put it to you that you were not entitled to the long term incentive. I put it to you that the long-term incentive is only open to localised staff.”
Odunewu replied: “That is not correct.”
He averred in his statement of claim that his position in MTN came under attack when a group of white South Africans was posted to supervise network group management in 2005.
He alleged an “onslaught” against him as his superiors suddenly became “disturbed that a Nigerian could possess such incredible experience and exposure.”
Odunewu recounted that the situation became absurd when he received a letter dated February 28, 2006 purportedly terminating his appointment and his access to the MTN network as an employee immediately revoked.
In its defence, MTN submitted that Odunewu’s contract was of limited duration due for termination on December 12, 2003.
It claimed that “the letter of offer of employment with the second defendant (MTN) expressly warned against any expectation of continued employment, nor was it ever at any time suggested to the claimant that he was to be made or had been made a permanent employee of the second defendant or any of the defendants.
“In the circumstances, claimant knew and expected, or ought to have known and expected, that his employment was not a long-term or permanent appointment, and that the same was also liable to be determined within 60 days of the receipt of written notice.
“The defendants say that the claimant’s claim is speculative and gold-digging, that he is not entitled to the reliefs claimed or at all and that the claim herein should be dismissed with substantial costs in favour of the defendants.”
Further hearing in the case continues today, February 16.